Where Discussion Lives

Main menu

AP World Post #2

There were two empires in India, the Mauryans and the Guptas. Which one was the best? You need to explain your answer fully using specific examples. This post will close on Monday, August 28 at 5:00 pm.

Post navigation

99 thoughts on “AP World Post #2”

Of the two Indian empires, I believe the Guptas were the better empire. The early Mauryan rulers were heavily dependent on the power of their large armies which ultimately ended up not helping them too much, as in, the collapse of the empire. Although it was the largest empire, it was unstable and left politically fragmented. What also makes the Guptas better than the Mauryans was that the early leaders used devices to consolidate support, created a taxation system, and spread uniform laws. The sacred and classical Indian language of Sanskrit was also promoted during the time of the Guptas. This spread of Sanskrit allowed stories in Vedas to be made. These Vedas led to religion, which certainly impacted Indian culture today. It is for these reasons that I consider the Guptas to be the better of the two, though the Mauryans weren’t necessarily “bad”, of course.

I can see where you are coming from but I disagree I found that the Guptas were the more splintered of the two given as they ruled by separate states much like the Zhou from China and fell to several civil wars.

I understand that culture and religion spread during the time of the Guptas, but the Mauryan practice of religious tolerance also promoted the ideas of ALL kinds of religion. The highly centralized Mauryan form of government also kept the empire together for many years.

I agree with your points although I still believe the Mauryans were the superior empire because unlike the Guptas they kept a strong government while the Guptas splint up their empire so much they became weaker

I disagree because the Mauryans promoted their laws more than the Guptas. The Mauryans posted laws on their borders to let incomers know their laws so their was not any unintentional crime. On the topic of religion, Ashoka Mauryan promoted religious tolerance, and converted to Buddhism from Hinduism, in which he stopped killing people.

The Mauryans were the greater of the two empires. Not only were they the first to unify India but they also brought most of cultural definining customs and beliefs. The Guptas being mostly all talk with very little central gov. The guptas were inferior to the strong gov. built by the Mauryans

I agree with you that the Mauryan Empire was far better then the Guptas and you also stated about them defining customs and beliefs. I totally forgot about them adding religious tolerance which is another reason why the Mauryan Empire were far superior.

The Guptas were a better empire than the Mauryans because the Mauryans collapsed after Ashoka died because he had no plan of his government after they died and they collapsed while the Guptas has a strict set of laws where very one could see them and had a government in place.

While the Guptas had a government in place, it was not a strong one, supported only by regional governments that eventually overthrew the Guptas because of the little power they wielded. And though the Mauryan empire fell apart after Ashokas death, it was still a strong empire during his life.

I disagree simply because the empire collapsed fowllowing Ashokas death does not mean they had a weaker state think about it like this the Mauryans fell a few years after a great leader died while the Guptas fell without having a great leader in the first place and after their first real conflict the Guptas are not the stronger gov in my opinion because of this fact

I disagree because the Guptas relied on others for strength, and fell apart without the strong centralized government that the Mauryans had. Also, the Mauryans had a better law system thanks to Ashoka’s pillars.

In my opinion, the Mauryans were the superior empire for many reasons. Though Ashoka was strict, his highly centralized government with few regional bureaucracies kept the empire together (unlike the Guptas). He also established clear, empire wide laws to keep peace and order among the people. The idea of religious tolerance was also quite new and progressive, and also kept the people happy. Chandragupta Maurya also expanded territory and unified the empire.

Well Grace, I as well believe that the Mauryan Dynasty was clearly the better empire because it had so many innovations and breakthroughs that the Guptan Empire can not even compare to. For instance centralized government and religious tolerance. Although, the Mauryan empire was more strict and harsh, it did create a more peaceful society. Thus, it can not be denied that the more successful empire was the Mauryan Empire.

I understand your points of view, and I think both dynasties had positive and negative impacts but between the two empires I believe the Gupta dynasty was more successful. In this time period politics were very important and the Mauryan Dynasty did not have stable politics, and often resorted to violence to expand territory. Ashoka had positive and influential qualities, but he also had negative ones. The negative qualities led to the downfall of the dynasty. In the Gupta dynasty there were no specific influential rulers but their politics were more impactful, which in my opinion was more important and made them more successful.

I agree that the Mauryans were the better empire, but Ashoka was actually a relatively brutal leader, so he didn’t really stop killing people. Because he converted to Buddhism, he also practiced religious tolerance.

Out of the two Indian empires the Mauryan empire was a much stronger empire compared the Guptas. The Gupta is a weaker empire because the Guptas split up their government to different areas and were much more prone to invasion. The Mauryans had a more centralized strong government which controlled majority of India and also owned stricter law and order to their empire.

I understand your point of view of the Mauryans being the better empire, however the Guptas had a stronger impact on later politics. In addition, the Mauryans used a lot of violence to expand territory whereas the Guptas preferred to negotiate.

The Mauryan empire was the far more superior empire compared to its counterpart, the Guptas. Not only did the Mauryan empire help unify Indian and have a strong cental gov., but it also established a set of laws that were effective even after the fall of the Mauryan empire when Ashoka died.

The Mauryans were superior due to them being able to rely on their own strength, while the Guptas, relied on others. Also, the Mauryans had a strong centralized government, which is better than the Gupta’s non-centralized government.

I agree with you because due to the size of the Mauryan Empire, they did have the strength and power to fend for themselves, while their counterpart the Gupta were less stable with their government and their empire.

I agree that the Mauryans could rely on their own strength but they also had other things that made them superior. Thanks to Ashoka they had laws to keep their people unified. But strength over the Guptas is ultimately what made them better

I believe the guptas we’re superior because they spread the language of Sanskrit and even if the mauryans had greater strength, it doesn’t matter if there are no enemies from the beginning, just look at Switzerland. Also money can’t solve all your problems but some problems are only solved by money too.

Well Brendan, you do bring up a good point that the Guptan Empire was the first to spread the Sanskrit language all through out India. However, how does a single language cause for one empire to be superior? In order to even be a successful empire one must accomplish a variety of breakthroughs to even be considered superior. Breakthroughs such as centralized government, religious tolerance, agricultural surplus, economic increase, peace, and even a powerful military. Which all of these were eventually created and established by the Mauryan Empire. Therefore, let me ask you again; how does a single language cause for one empire to be superior?

Of the two Indian empires, I believe that the Mauryans were the best. Although the Mauryans didn’t last as long as the Guptas, they still made a difference in their society. The Mauryans developed a great bureaucracy and a postal servive and had a government that was highly autocratic and relied heavily on military sources. But when Ashoka came to reign, he changed his ways and became apart of the religion of Buddhism and allowed torerance of religion which was different in most leaders. The Mauryans and the Guptas both achieved different things and were both great in their own way.

Between the two Indian empires I believe that the Mauryans were the greater of the two. The Mauryans did a lot in the military aspect, conquering new lands and winning a lot of their battles. They had very strong centralized government unlike the Guptas. Than when Ashoka turned to Buddhism, the new way of though led to the creation of roads, a postal service and Laws to unify his people. Things that are still present today. Both empires acheived amazing feats, but overall the Mauryans were better

I agree because of the construction roads, postal services, and a very centralized government, it is very similar to what we have today. The Mauryans time was shorter than the Guptas, but they achieved so much over their period of reign.

The Mauryan Empire was the better empire, as long as Ashoka Maurya is ruling. He expanded the Indian empire to include almost all of the Indian subcontinent, he integrated the Indian society, and he practices religious tolerance. He also posted laws at the borders that let incomers recognize the laws so any unintentional crime was not committed. He was very social-centric, and he studied religions in his spare time. The only downside to his reign is that it ended. After Ashoka Maurya died, there was an economic crisis. The bureaucracy and military were no longer funded properly, which led to devaluations of their currency just to pay salaries.

Out of the two empires I believe that the Mauryans were the better ones, although they did not last as long as the Guptas they had a very stable empire as long as Ashoka Maurya was in control. Ashoka Maurya was a very good, stable leader and as long as he was in control, India would expand and their would be religion practices. The only reason the Mauryans did not last as long as the Guptas did was because Ashoka Maurya died and he was really the only good leader who kept the empire stabilized and nobody after that was as good of a ruler as he was.

During classical India there were two different types of Empires that ruled over majority of the Indian peninsula. The first one being the Mauryan Empire; the second one being the Gupta Empire. However, one most definitely had a better control over India than the other. That being said, the Mauryan Empire was most certainly the better dynasty because it had a better centralized government. Therefore, they could establish laws and regulations all through out the kingdom. Which would then establish government authority and peace. Allowing for economics and agriculture to extremely flourish during this age. Hence, why the Mauryan Empire was clearly the best Empire of Classical India.

In my opinion of the two Indian empires both had their strengths and weaknesses. But the “better” of the two Indian empires I beleive the Mauryans were superior because they had a strong central government. The central government made the Mauryan empire less vulnerable to invasions. The Mauryan government also had a strict set of laws in place to keep the order and peace even when Ashoka died.Another way the Mauryans were superior to the Guptas were they practiced religious tolerance

I believe that the Guptas were a better empire because they had it set up in a way that they could keep functioning if a leader died. This was unlike the Mauryans. This made them the better empire so they would not stop working if someone in a high power position died.

I agree, they had a system set up that the mauryans did not. I had not thought about this and how it could be helpful to others when wanting to keep following this tradition, they had no one to rule them when the leader passes.

I believe the Guptas were more impactful than the Mauryans. The Mauryans had a successful ruling but they did not establish durable roots. Their politics were not very stable and the government they had did not impact later political developments. This was their downfall and after roughly 100 years, they were invaded and overruled but the Kushans. The Guptas had many rulers, unlike the two main Mauryan ones, but they had a bigger impact on later developments. Their politics were more stable and there was still influence without fighting, unlike the Mauryan empire. In this time period politics were very important, and in that area the Guptas were more advanced than the Mauryans making them more impactful and the ‘better’ of the two.

While it was true that the Gupta would eventually outlive the Mauryan and continue ruling for some time after; your point about the Mauryan not contributing to later political developments can be disputed. After all were the Mauryan not the first of the two to introduce a code of law that continued to live on even after their fall.

I think that the Mauryan empire was better than the Gupta empire. This is because the Mauryan empire controlled more of India at its peak and also had a better centralized government. This helped them establish laws throughout India, which helped them unify India and create more peace throughout their empire.

In my opinion I think that the Mauryan Empire was the better of the two. They had given India a stable central government, trade had expanded and thrived, and they a single currency was established. While the Gupta was mainly focused on the literature and arts, they lacked in government and political issues.

I agree about the Mauryan central goverment and it single currecy , however the mauryan empire was relied on too much on neighbring empire and collaseped after the askhoka died, leave the mauryan empire to collapsed

Gutapas was the better empire than the Mauryans because the Mauryans has no sense of control when it came to ruling and heavily relied on other empires,but fell and the Guptas have a good set of laws and great sense of control , no doubt the guptas was the better empire, however the mauryans has a good councils and let women have a higher power

I agree with you Tomas. The Guptas clearly had more control although they had less land than the Mauryans. The Guptas ended up having far more impact than the Mauryans ever did. Although it was great that the Mauryans gave women more rights.

I believe that the Mauryan empire was superior to the Gupta empire. The Mauryan’s helped to unify Classical India, had a strong centralized government, and created a set of laws that stuck even after the fall of the empire.

The Gupta’s were a far superiority the mauryans due to stable rule. Also due to their seasonal trades they were more economic stable. Gender relations were also better than mauryans as women had few more rights than the women of the mauryans.

The Mauryan dynasty was better equipped to govern India because they were the first to completely unify the subcontinent of India and establish a genuine government. This was shown by their achievement of building a bureaucracy. Although Chandragupta Maurya, the first Mauryan dynasty ruler, did rely heavily on his own personal power and military strength to maintain power, he was able to keep somewhat peace. The Mauryans were able to expand India’s territory by a very substantial amount. This isn’t seen in the Guptas dynasty as they more so left the governing up to conquered rulers of small areas of India. The Guptas rule was more for show and wealth instead of genuine rule over the land.

Mauryans are the best because they had a very centered government and compared to the Guptas they had a more expanded territory. Since Gupta came after the Mauryans are credited for most thing such as the splitting of provinces. The Mauryan ruler was also pretty great. While focusing on increasing military strength, he also tried to maintain peace within His civilization. Maurya built many hospitals, temples, and roads for his people.

Personally, I believe the Mauryans were the best out of the two empires. Ashoka was able to form laws to keep order and peace. They had a better centralized government, a single currency was in place, and trade began to grow.

Of the two Indian empires, I believe the Mauraya Empire was better than the Gupta. The Maurayan Empire had positive rulership, and they expanded their empire to include all Indian subcontinent (except for the south).Meanwhile the Guptas were a highly decentralized leadership, they disinterested along regional fault lines, and they were constantly invaded by the white Huns.

Of the two Indian empire the Mauryan and the Gupta I believe that the Mauryan were the greater of the two empires. The Mauryan were the first to unite most of India and to introduce a code of law. The tolerance of other religions put into place by Ashoka along with his creation of the rock edicts were great achievements that no other civilization at the time really grasped.

I believe that the Mauyran empire was the better because they had a more centralized government because of the successful caste system. And the Mauyran had more land under control at its height than Gupta.

I agree, because they were also able to to trade successfully with other villages internationally with no problem at all, while the Guptas were dependent off of agriculture for their economy because successful trading for them was barely growing steadily.

The Mauryan Empire was better because they had a stronger government which enforced and established laws. In addition, they had strong military leaders and presence. They had good efficient trades with spices and had built a stable economy with forms of currency. While this empire did fall and collapse it was greater because it set a foundation for the next empire. The next empire was not as successful because they wanted to separate themselves for the origin.

In my opinion I think the Mauryan empire was much better than the Gupta empire. One of the reasons is because they changed their religious beliefs to Buddhism and it eventually became their main religion, while the Guptas tried to do the same thing but ended up being the reason their empire fell. But the main reason would probably be because of how they’re government was ruled by the emperor and some councils, while the Gupta empire was technically ran by the public.

I agree. When a community is ran by public, conflicting opinions or ideas could cause a lot of issue which is why the Mauryan empire was so successful because they had an empire with councils which benefits the community a lot more and represents a lot more people in a more organized way.

In my opinion, the Mauryan Empire was superior because of Ashoka’s pacifist ideology and their advances in infrastructure. Because they built so many buildings, their society was advanced, while the Guptan dynasty focused on expansion, instead of making their land better.

I agree with what you said about the Guptan empire being more focused on expanding. I feel like since they put most of their time into developing their land while the Mauryan empire was already developed and so big, it explains why the Mauryan empire is better.

I think the Gupta empire was better. Despite the Mauryans having more land, they couldn’t control it efficiently. The Gupta empire had less land, only the northern area of India, but they had a much better control with their regional government. They had political stability and literature that influenced much of Indian society.

I believe that the Gupta empire was better than the Mauryan empire. The Mauryan dynasty did not establish durable roots and in the end, did not have much later impact throughout later years. They also were overthrown by the Kushans. Although the Mauryans had more land than the Guptas, the Gupta empire had far more control than the Mauryans. Although some leaders of the Mauryans are still well-known today, the leaders of the Gupta empire had more impact on society.The Gupta empire gave India its greatest period of political stability in history, therefore clearly showing it is the better empire.

I think the Gupta empire was the better empire because they were better organazidd and had a lot more control. They also were what influenced today’s society where as the muaryans are just better known. They didn’t however, have a stable government neither did they have a stable society because they were able to be invaded.

There were two empires in India, the Mauryans and the Guptas. Which one was the best? You need to explain your answer fully using specific examples. This post will close on Monday, August 28 at 5:00 pm.
I believe that the Gupta empire was the best because it was pretty relaxed and did not ask too much of anyone. Plus, if you were a local ruler, you could have continued to rule and even make revenue out of it (by collecting the taxes of the territory.)

I believe that the Mauryan empire was better than the Guptan empire because it had a stronger government. What benefitted the Mauryan’s in having a strong government is they lasted longer than the Guptan empire. They also gained most of the land in the Indian subcontinent.

Personally I do believe the Mauryans were the better of the two civilizations because of the governmental power they had that forced the empire to flourish and the fact they had already an expanded area of land that would allow for them to develop advanced cityscapes in which naturally gave more value to the empire.

I believe that the mauryan empire was the best out of the 2 because they had a strong centralized government unlike the gupta empire where they were separated and not as unified. Also the mauryan empire made laws and codes that lasted longer than their own empire.

In my opinion the Mauryan empire was greater than the Gupta. They were much more expanded owning more land and having more control. Ashoka established laws on his pillar keeping there empire under a well controlled government. He also changed his ways of killing violently to representing a more pacifist life under Buddha, making the Mauryan empire more peaceful. The Mauryan empire left great influence and controlled more land than the Gupta empire. Which is why I believe the Mauryan were the greater empire.

Of the two empires, I believe the Guptas were better because of their political stability. The Guptas had a great bereaucracy system which led to India’s greatest political stability. The social classes were also not as impactful as in the Mauryan Empire.

I would have to choose the Gupta empire as the best. This is due in fact because of two main reasons. First their was Peace everywhere with little to no violence. To add, there was a lot of wealth to go around due to the large trading industry which made it the golden age of India